I find it frightening that people actually think of books as dangerous. If you notice, the authors of these books are all infamous people. Just because an infamous person pens a book, does not make it dangerous. If anything I think it should be considered good because it gives us a glimpse into the minds of a twisted individual.

While I am not a fan of Engles and Marx(in fact I think they had no grasp of economics and human self-interest), calling books dangerous is asinine. Thinking that books are hurting the country is a precursor to a totalitarian state.

I was making a parallel to the fact that the books on that list are flagged, and the government knows when and where they are purchased...
and that libraries in many places refuse to have them on the shelves.

There would be no need for book burning in the United States because not enough Americans read for it to make a difference. These days, entertainment has more influence over public thought than any other use of media. Instead of the government burning subversive books, we have private companies organizing events where they smash Dixie Chicks CDs with a bulldozer because of things that band members said.

Going back to what I said about the mass smashing of Dixie Chicks CDs, I think it is more dangerous for private corporations to engage in this kind of behavior than it is for the government to do it, for several reasons:

1.) If the State were to burn books or smash CDs, what is happening would be more apparent to the public and might alert them to the nature of their government. (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking.)

2.) Such an event as the Louisiana radio station's CD smashing appears more like a grassroots or popular campaign than a repressive action by people in power, which means it is more likely to garner public support. (If I am not mistaken, the radio station in question is owned by mega-conglomerate and ardent Bush supporter Clear Channel, the same corporation that warned its stations against playing Rage Against the Machine and other "offensive" music after Sept. 11.)

3.) If an act is committed by a private entity, it is not subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as an act of the State, even if the act was clearly committed for the purpose of denigrating critics of the State and/or punishing dissent. In this way, government bodies can use their sway (or sometimes direct influence) over a private company to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal. In fact, given the use of false-front businesses by the DEA, CIA, and other agencies to perform long-term investigations, it wouldn't be too far-fetched for the government to set up fake businesses so that it can use them to oppress people.

In fact, given the use of false-front businesses by the DEA, CIA, and other agencies to perform long-term investigations, it wouldn't be too far-fetched for the government to set up fake businesses so that it can use them to oppress people.

The whole thing just sucks. Sucks.

Click to expand...

I would not be suprised at all if years from now it is discovered that exactly that is happening. and it more than sucks... I just don't know how to express how I feel about actions such as these.